Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="arwink" data-source="post: 1403986" data-attributes="member: 2292">My philosophies related to DnD are very simple:A) Make sure everyone is having funB) Play to the games strengths, not its weaknesses.Adding flavor has rarely been a big deal to me - although it largely comes down to changing the description of a spell effect, or replicating special abilities in new ways.&nbsp; The old trick of changing the visual so the PC's can't recognise it works wonders, and if game balance is a problem for the players its relatively easy to point out after the encounter that all you did was change the visuals.&nbsp; The spell/special ability/whatever that hit them is no more or less out of whack than spell X it was based off.To my mind, DnD does have a certain flavor to it already, and it's counter productive to try and go up against that using the rules.&nbsp; The scads of hit points, overloaded magic, wading through hordes of goblins with monolithic levels PC's are within the nature of the game, and I fully intend to play that to the hilt.&nbsp; My approach to the game is entirely the same as if I was writing a story to fit into a genre - there are certain things I'll do because it fits into a detective story just as there are several things I play because they fit nicely into DnD.&nbsp; If I didn't want to play in the DnD flavor, I'd use a different RPG system to do what I want to do.&nbsp; Possibly a D20 system, possibly not, but certainly not baseline DnD.Edit: I have the advantage that I love baseline DnD, particularly 3e, and haven't really found any problem fitting my ideas in around the flavor of it.&nbsp; I rarely find myself frustrated by the rules, and I'm rarely in conflict with my players.&nbsp; Which goes back to philosophy a nicely.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="arwink, post: 1403986, member: 2292"] My philosophies related to DnD are very simple: A) Make sure everyone is having fun B) Play to the games strengths, not its weaknesses. Adding flavor has rarely been a big deal to me - although it largely comes down to changing the description of a spell effect, or replicating special abilities in new ways. The old trick of changing the visual so the PC's can't recognise it works wonders, and if game balance is a problem for the players its relatively easy to point out after the encounter that all you did was change the visuals. The spell/special ability/whatever that hit them is no more or less out of whack than spell X it was based off. To my mind, DnD does have a certain flavor to it already, and it's counter productive to try and go up against that using the rules. The scads of hit points, overloaded magic, wading through hordes of goblins with monolithic levels PC's are within the nature of the game, and I fully intend to play that to the hilt. My approach to the game is entirely the same as if I was writing a story to fit into a genre - there are certain things I'll do because it fits into a detective story just as there are several things I play because they fit nicely into DnD. If I didn't want to play in the DnD flavor, I'd use a different RPG system to do what I want to do. Possibly a D20 system, possibly not, but certainly not baseline DnD. Edit: I have the advantage that I love baseline DnD, particularly 3e, and haven't really found any problem fitting my ideas in around the flavor of it. I rarely find myself frustrated by the rules, and I'm rarely in conflict with my players. Which goes back to philosophy a nicely. [/QUOTE]

Verification